a reply to: MrSpad
so, it`s a case of "no harm,no foul"? That makes it`s even worse since us commoners are tried,convicted and sent to jail for victimless crimes.The
laws were written for all of us and were meant to be enforced against all of us.This system of different rules for the elite needs to stop and it will
stop, the millenials will see to that.

Looking back on another thread about this, you mentioned that should anyone get caught in this sense, they would loose their clearance, and if nothing
was harmed in national security, then nothing more would be done. You likely know much better than the rest of us. I just know when I was in, I had
a secret clearance, and was told what not to discuss.

But if that's true, then Hillary should loose her clearance right away, and if that happens, how in the world can she be qualified to be president?
With no clearance?

He admitted giving classified materials to his mistress who was not authorized to the see them. A deliberate act. That could be called espionage.
However as no real damage was done to national security he revived only a misdemeanor charge. The case with Clinton is more of an administrative one
and a what if.

He admitted giving classified materials to his mistress who was not authorized to the see them. A deliberate act. That could be called espionage.
However as no real damage was done to national security he revived only a misdemeanor charge. The case with Clinton is more of an administrative one
and a what if.

not sure i understand the difference. She had an unsecure server that housed classified documents, and in this investigation, it was already proven
that she distributed classified material to at least one person in her employ that did not have any clearance. Again, perhaps I just don't understand
but to me, that sounds very similar and based on the little I know about reality, this should at the very least carry the same punishment you
mentioned any other person might get, or in the case you mentioned, just bringing classified material out of the contained area, could have revoked
your clearance. So why does her involvement not warrant at least the removal of her clearance until this is all settled?

There are guys in prison that are former CIA, FBI, State Department, and other government officials who are in prison with 10 to 20 + years for far
less than what we know for sure she did just by what they have already released to the public.

Also if I'm not mistaken all Patras did was share info about his calendar book for appointments to his mistress so they could plan meet ups not full
access to his secure email and everything. Right??

The Bush administration did something similar during his presidency. To date I don't believe any charges were ever filed and no massive investigation
took place.

It appears that Hillary is being focused on for political purposes, when previous acts similar in nature have been dismissed.

Really... do you have a link that shows where Bush was caught with 2200+ classified emails on an unclassified server?

Post that link.

That is too hard.... how about a link to any government official who was caught with 20 classified emails on their private email server..... got any
of those... that is only 20...not 2200+..... got a link for that?

He admitted giving classified materials to his mistress who was not authorized to the see them. A deliberate act. That could be called espionage.
However as no real damage was done to national security he revived only a misdemeanor charge. The case with Clinton is more of an administrative one
and a what if.

Hillary deliberately sent a classified email to Sidney Blumenthal who has no clearance.... a deliberate act... that would be called espionage by your
example.

(d) The unauthorized disclosure of foreign government information is presumed to cause damage to the national security.

Hmmm lets see.... what information is considered originally classified?

Sec. 1.4. Classification Categories. Information shall not be considered for classification unless its unauthorized disclosure could reasonably be
expected to cause identifiable or describable damage to the national security in accordance with section 1.2 of this order, and it pertains to one or
more of the following:

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.